Update- Upon advice of some of my allies, I have decided to split the pro-GLOVAL and anti-DOLL issues. I really don�t know why I didn�t see that myself before, but the advice was very solid, and I have acted on it. That is why this page now has BOTH DOLL rants, and the other none.

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY

It is well known that Andering REDDSON has a beef with the DOLL; It�s been going on now for some time.
The truth is, there WAS a time I might even have JOINED DOLL, and had indeed considered it, until their TRUE purpose was revealed, in a discussion entitled �Henry Gloval= War Criminal.� In the course of that �discussion� it was revealed, for all the world to see, that the DOLL was nothing more than a basher�s organization. I fault LEONARD for his faults, but even I would argue that, to some of his faults, there is some mitigation; The DOLL�s argue that ALL his faults were �someone else�s�, and rather than actually ACCEPTING BLAME for LEONARD�S failures (outlined elsewhere), began an aggressive campaign against just about everyone else, most nobtably St�s Minmie and GLOVAL.
They whine that I�ve compared them to the NAZI party; They have no one to blame but themselves. After all, THEY opened that door. Their repetition of completely discredited defenses to LEONARD and equally discredited allegations against others is known as �argumentum ad nauseam�. I was thinking about that as I reviewed some 2�-ish pages of generally asinine �arguments� they had collectively presented, and how like Joseph GOEBBELS (NAZI Minister of propaganda, 1922 to 1945) their tactic was. After all, their method is to continuously attack just about every one else, from LYNNE Minmie to Henry GLOVAL, and even LEONARD�S own subordinates, such as and especially Rolf EMERSON (whom LEONARD had murdered as a potential political rival) repeatedly, until the versions of history they�d LIKE us to believe end up sounding like the truth- Yes, GOEBBELS own �Big Lie� philosophy. Worse, their allegations have yet to hold up to final scrutiny of evaluation; St. Minime may well have been �As silly little girl�, but that�s HARDLY here fault. Further, it is that same �silly little girl� who, almost single handedly, brought the mighty T�sentr�di TO THEIR KNEES, incapable even of defending themselves. St GLOVAL may have been in Toronto when KYHRON launched his attack against the SDF-�1 MACROSS, but that HARDLY makes him guilty of the deaths of the people of Toronto. It was an act of WAR, and an act initiated by KYHRON (who was known to often strike on his own, without and even AGAINST orders).
Even this did not sate their appetites for �other people�s blood.� When they realized I, PERSONALLY, stupid as they had many times accused me of (a case study of the use of Big Lie) had presented THE critical argument that made them all look, put bluntly, FOOLISH, they made the campaign less about St. GLOVAL and more about his defenders- They strayed from the path of defending LEONARD to the path of bashing other characters, whether by intent or misstep, but then strayed even from that path to the path of ad hominem attacks against other fans. That I proved they LIED (NEVER, EVER, lie to me) about what laws St GLOVAL may or may not have broken (they quoted a non-existent law, claiming it was �134 of the UCMJ; When I quoted the ACTUAL �134, they REALLY got upset), then fired back with Navrules 3(f) which essentially said that St GLOVAL had every right to act as he did.
Well, they didn�t like that. Not one little bit. In fact, they DISLIKED it so much they went screaming for the moderators to shut me up, using bits and pieces of the rules they themselves had so stubbornly broken, bent, and ignored. They also launched a counter attack, turning to an non-professional source for answers.
When I was in BM �A� School, I used the SDF-�1�s own scenario to explore Rule 3(f); �My question was, if a warship (I mentioned USS REGAN at the time, since I�d recently seen her in port) carrying civilians requests to put them off, what, if any, rights did the skipper have? The unequivocal answer was �He can do anything he needs to under those circumstances.� And anything meant anything, up to and including POINTING GUNS AT US NAVAL FORCES. (When I asked the latter part, the BM� got a look on his face and said, �Ya. He�d better have one Hell of an excuse, but ya.�)
The new dubbing of the DOLL as the �ROBOTECH NAZI Party� may be harsh, but appropriate. I hope the Gestapo can carry that standard, �PROUD AND TALL.�




No peace, EVER, with the Disciples of Limpdick LEONARD (DOLL�s)
This was actually the FIRST essay I wrote on the subject of DOLL; It even predates my ban at RDF Coms Cen. Technically the title SHOULD BE �DOL- The ROBOTECH Cyber Gang�, but at the time I was trying to re-connect, maybe rebuild the bridges they�d burned so completely. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Their loss.

HYPOCRITES-
THY NAME IS DOL.
The Disciples of Limpdick LEONARD (DOLL�s) claim to be the victim of a hateful, spiteful �campaign� against them- I beg to differ, and I am the proof of it. In reality, I am too LAZY to pick a fight on my own; But once someone picks one WITH me, well, that�s another story.
At the Robotech.com boards, the DOLL�s started something like a half-dozen threads on bashing St GLOVAL (in violation of the TOU, I might add, which forbids multiple threads on any one subject at a time). Eventually, Ned FLETCHER and I, independently, started separate threads in his defense. Mine was started after DOLL�s viciously, maliciously, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE TOU THEY HIDE BEHIND SO MUCH, not only spammed and flamed the thread so far off track that it became completely de-railed (in violation of the TOU condition that, AND I QUOTE, �Deliberate attempts to be disruptive and/or push the limits of the rules are not going to be tolerated.�). Mine was but a mere attempt to collect St. GLOVAL�s defenders under one roof (I admit, at the time I did not know there was another such group on another board at the site; The two have now formed an alliance). This, thread, too, was spammed, flamed, and I was eventually called outside by their �Supreme Commandant�- Who, within hours of getting his ass handed to him (and yes, I did tell him to go fuck himself in a LOT more words) proceeded to bitch and whine about how rude I�d been.
Ya, I was rude- Learn a lesson, NEVER CALL ME OUT. I might just take you up on it.
At any rate, I contacted ANOTHER DOLL on different business. Here is a copy of my ORIGINAL email, AS HE HIMSELF VERIFIED:

Subject: Truce. Temporary.
I�m am writing you ONLY about D.O.M.A.D.- �What�s the story? Convince me that the idea that Mint is Sammie�s daughter (or, more likely, granddaughter).
And in all due fairness, I am VERY open to the idea� But expect me to fight it ANYWAYS because that�s the way I am and I want to be able to believe it and know it�s a truly defensible argument.

I freely admit, I sent him that kind-of out of the blue. THIS is what I got in reply:

Subject: Re: Truce. Temporary.
First; Do NOT contact me without asking.
Second; I don't believe you seek information for enjoyment. I believe you seek it to find someone else to attack, hence I will not help you in this regard.
Third: Your not open to any ideas. Your the most close minded, arrogant, obnoxious, disrespectful, argumentative, belligerent, prick, I have ever know.
So needless to say, your writing to the wrong person. How dare you call me a lier, act like an idiot, carry on like a loon, and then expect me to help you in anything??!!
Your email is now on my spam block list. Do not waste your time or energy writing me on anything again or it will be reported as such. Hotmail does NOT take kindly to people being reported as spammers.

Well, seeing as I was unable I don�t see HOW I could ask �first.� �And why would I ask about the subject in question if I didn�t want to know? �What kind of asshole would go out of their way to ask someone about a subject, if all they wanted to do was attack it?
I most certainly am NOT the, �most close minded, arrogant, obnoxious, disrespectful, argumentative, (and) belligerent, prick� he�s ever met, but if that is what he wants that is what he will GET. Especially, after all that whining and crying about how I�d been �harassing� him (even though the FACTS are that he and his collogues made a completely personal offensive against me, PERSONALLY, over the pro-GLOVAL/anti-GLOVAL hate; His comments were PERSONAL, and against me, and had nothing to do with GLOVAL at all). And please get me started about his empty threat of �Hotmail does NOT take kindly to people being reported as spammers.�
The worst part of it was MY attitude vs his; I entered it with a mindset of, �Gee, this would be a really good opportunity to find common ground on SOMETHING with a DOLL. Maybe even open up OTHER dialogs later on.� Most CERTAINLY, it was not to be beaten over the head for it.
IRL, the so-call �Disciples Of (Limpdick) LEONARD� would have long ago been wiped away as a corrupt institution under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act statutes. Those who have nothing to do with the harassment, bullying, and (mostly empty) threats of DOLL�s leadership would be well-served to end their relationship thereof, before the bad apples in the bunch ruin them, as well.
Further info: Having contacted another D.O.M.A.D., I got a courteous, short, and very to the point answer- The founder of D.O.M.A.D. HIMSELF revived an old topic just for me. (Ok, not really �just� for me.) I sent HIM essentially the exact same msg, but for the sake of completeness here it is ANYWAYS:

Subject: D.O.M.A.D.
I�m am writing you about D.O.M.A.D.- �What�s the story? Convince me that the idea that Mint is Sammie�s daughter (or, more likely, granddaughter).
And in all due fairness, I am VERY open to the idea� But expect me to fight it ANYWAYS because that�s the way I am and I want to be able to believe it and know it�s a truly defensible argument.

The changes- I changed the subject (I needed no �truce� with this person) and took the word �ONLY� out of the msg (again, no need for a truce meant no need to �only� talk about- Well, ANYTHING). This gentleman also happens to be a DOLL member, but not one of the Psycho-NAZI wannabes. Though to be perfectly blunt, I�d rather deal with a brick wall than a DOLL NAZI- At least the wall has the respect to stand there quietly, if not listening, then not interrupt.
Furthermore, the DOLL is very much the sort of organization for which the US Congress, in one of it�s very few moments of clarity of thought, passed the 197� Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act- To put to bay the Mafia at first, but latter ANY organization that used intimidation, threats, harassment, and etc to coerce others to do as they say (reference DIAZ v. GATES, 42� F.3d 897 {9th Cir. 2��5, in which LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT was declared a RICO Act violator).

To forstall stupid questions- Yes, I eventually DID declare myself a supporter of D.O.M.A.D.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1